122 comments:

At this point, I think most Texans wouldn't follow Rick Perry to a barbecue restaurant in Luling, much less out of the Union. And that includes most Republicans. But he had his moment for awhile there.

Texas, a great state, must be in sorry shape if this is the best they can do.

Alas, there is truth to this statement. Although an other way of looking at it is that things are going pretty well in Texas, so anyone in office is in good shape and by and large people are focused on other, more pressing matters than who is up or down in Austin.

Washington can't pick its own nose, Rick Perry! You must be an anti-Semite or something. Let me look here...maybe a racist? American citizens are very unique as well! More unique than your slightly unique state! We'll boot you out of your double-wide lot if you adhere!

30 states refused to join Obama at the porkfest. While Washington can cow one or a few states, the spark is there. They won't formally rebel, they will simply not comply when it gets too onerous. And there is nothing Washington can do about that. Beggaring half the country to support the other half isn't a long term winning strategy.

Technically Perry is right. The Texas Republic joined the Union with out clause, one that Congress accepted. As a practical matter that probably doesn't mean anything today but unlike Obama, he hasn't lied.

The Obama administration seems to be declaring war on Texas. The EPA is threatening their energy grid. Now they are declaring war on Arizona. Maybe the secession thing is the other side choosing who they want in the union. The South misjudged the balance of forces when they seceded in 1861. That balance has shifted lately.

There's no need for secession. Massive, state-level civil disobedience, until Washington DC is made to come to its senses, would do it.

Texas is always the state I have in mind for this scenario. Suppose that Texas were to refuse to take Federal money, and pass a law saying that citizens of Texas will not be punished if they fail to pay Federal income tax, and that Federal officials may not enforce Federal law against Texas citizens.

Texas would stop sending money to Washington DC, and stop taking it. No secession, no rebellion. Just passive resistance. The Feds can't arrest a whole state, and the military is largely Southern; if the resistance is non-violent nothing will happen. Other states may be sufficiently inspired to follow suit. A Constitutional convention may follow.

The path we are on now, it ends up like Snow Crash; where the government exists but is powerless, useless, and broke. Or we end up enslaved to a Man on Horseback.

edutcher - According to the Federalist Papers, secession is the last defense against a tyrannical government. Lincoln prevailed only by force of arms, not rule of law.

Last time out, where was most of the population?

Where were the means of production?

The states that would side with Zero might be on the same end of the scale as the Confederacy.

Agree with edutcher. And a 2nd war of seccession might be a lot faster and a lot less bloody than the 1st Civil War.Almost all the food, energy, manufacturing, and military might in the United States now rests in Red States, or the red areas in Blue States that surround the great blue cities full of government workers and welfare people that provide the demographics the Dems count on.

You might not even see a split in the country after a 2nd Civil War, but a takeover by the people that surround blue cities and university towns. With no guarantee that the losers would have the right to vote anymore and all the Constitutional changes the Red areas want put inplace once the opposition is defeated in warfare. (Just as it required the defeat of the Confederacy and emplacement of Union tools in Congress from Southern districts in order to clean up the Constitution in 1865-1868).

"In this country, as well as others, anti-immigrant, racist and xenophobic fantasies often lurk within secessionist claims."

From the article. There's a whole lot more of the same, too. See... it's all about racism. And the logic to prove it is, If A then B, if B then A.

In other words, it's the very first logical fallacy you learn (and possibly the first you forget the name of.)

If the Confederate States attempted to succeed because they were racists who wanted, more than anything, to own slaves, then anyone else who so much as makes a light comment about succession also is a vile racist who likes slavery.

And no one is going to call the authors on it because the authors are black men and thus any push-back is racist.

Texas, and as I understand it they vote on a regular basis to remain in the Union, is ritualistically making a statement about who is the boss of who. Is the Federal government our servant or our sovereign?

The sorts who find this appalling, just like they find the nativist political group in Alaska that Todd belonged to appalling, aren't from the super-patriot love-it-or-leave-it groups. So what is going on then?

Well, maybe being unashamed of patriotism and maybe having a nationalistic bent, isn't about bowing down to the government at all. Maybe it's about who is the boss of who.

A 2nd Civil War might be won just by placing people around blue cities and universities with guns, told to shoot anyone who tries to come out before Blue liberal surrender.Right after the gas valves are closed and circuit breakers opened going into blue areas. All telecomms cut. And all the trucks bringing food in are stopped.Yes, no doubt there would be vehement protest rallies in liberal activist areas about that....angry blacks again burning cities...and petitions to starving freezing judges in darkened courtrooms. So what?

With subjects like this, I always remember the KGB analyst who predicted the country would split into as many as 6 different nations.

His time frame is off, of course, but, if you consider Red and Blue States in terms of blocs, with the Red States holding most of Flyover Country, it's an interesting chess game.

PS On the issue of who would be more like the Union and who the Confederacy, one switch would be where the troops in the Regulars come from. Back then, it was the South that sent a great many, now it's Flyover Country.

Although an other way of looking at it is that things are going pretty well in Texas, so anyone in office is in good shape and by and large people are focused on other, more pressing matters than who is up or down in Austin.

@Synova:The sorts who find this appalling, just like they find the nativist political group in Alaska that Todd belonged to appalling, aren't from the super-patriot love-it-or-leave-it groups. So what is going on then?

It's a stick to beat them with. "I thought conservatives were patriots. Don't you all love America? Why do you hate America?." It's an ad hominem argument of the sort that is getting all too common, and annoying, these days--trying to show that a group is guilty of the thing they accuse others of being guilty of. Conservatives have their versions.

I for one wish people would stop trying to show hypocrisy, or inconsistency, or whatever, and just argue for what they personally believe in. But it will never catch on.

When you love your country, you can love its people and its culture without necessarily loving its government. The "patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels" crowd--I deliberately misquote to explicate their misunderstanding of the real quote--are also the "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" crowd, and also the "world opinion/global test" crowd continually complaining how much better things are done in Europe.

Funniest thing I ever saw was all the American flags breaking out over Seattle after Obama's election. If Romney is elected they'll get put away again.

Great thoughts, Gabriel and C4. And as in CS Lewis' _The Great Divorce_, the occupants of metaphorical Hell, where you have houses with no roofs and it rains all the time, you can take a bus up to Heaven any time.

But that's too unfair a metaphor. As someone said today, both temperaments are necessary for balance.

Frankly, this idea, that the States are being run roughshod by the Federal Government is gaining traction.

The States are supposed to be sovereign and join together to be part of the United States, but retain all powers not delegated to the Union. When the Feds step into State issues, take away the independence of State and prevent the States from operating in the way that they and their citizens feel is best for them....the resentment is only going to grow.

The Arizona illegal immigration issue is one that will ultimately result in violence as people realize that they are completely on their own with the Federal Government aiding and abetting lawlessness and their State powers have been gelded. If no one is going to protect you, you must protect yourself.

LOL. You got issues man. Perry takes as much, or more, federal aid than any other state. He even whined Obama wasn't responding to his requests fast enough for disaster funds. Texas wouldn't last a fucking month without Washington. He patched his budget with billions from the stimulus, and then, of course, whines about the stimulus. Typical Republican that way. All bark. No bite.

If Texas quit sending any money to the Feds, Texas wouldn't need any money back again.

Other states are different. Louisiana would be in a great deal of pain, for example.

Alaska is another of the favorite "look how much Federal money they get" places, but if they were also left to themselves and had control over the 80% of their own land the Feds have in a strangle-hold, they too would be just fine without Federal dollars.

When you love your country, you can love its people and its culture without necessarily loving its government.

I'm with Pogo on this one. America fatally wounded and is dying. It's not for nothing that over 50% of the populace doesn't pay income taxes and wants spending to increase.

Over the last decade, I've lost all my affection for American culture and my fellow Americans. And I'm your typical white, highly educated, Catholic lawyer type. I'm like a skinny, younger Alito. I'm 33 years old.

But I stopped watching TV in 2007 after constant assault from commercials, news, and entertainment that men were idiots and the source of evil, whereas women were objectively good. Feminism agitprop in every action movie where a girl kicks ass, gay agitprop in every sitcom. My money paying to support Hollywood. I killed my TV back then. I watch better stuff now, more healthy entertainment broadcast in other countries that I download on the internet. At least in those shows, there's no agitprop.

And feminist superiority has infected family courts, where men nearly always pay alimony and hardly ever get sole custody. Men are under constant assault in the workplace and a single false accusation can destroy a career or even your entire life. It's not safe to be alone with women anymore.

I never listened to popular music much, since that's been rotten for decades. An occasional catchy tune doesn't mean that the entire system still isn't rotten to the core.

Police have become militarized overnight and it's become far too dangerous to even question a cop's authority, unless you like a bunch of broken teeth.

Republicans are useless to stop this because they are idiots and also complicit in the expansion of Power. They want their rings to be kissed just like every other liberal, but about different things. Orin Hatch basically forced Microsoft to get involved in lobbying because of that. It's all about Power and they will never give it up.

Liberals, of course, are more open and objective about their cruel hatred of people. I just want to live without being bothered, but they keep trying to screw with me. It's such a joke that people might even think liberalism has anything to do with freedom.

So no, it's not just the government that's the problem. It's the people and the culture. We get the government that's consistent with the culture, after all. And the people want to be lorded over by the elites they elect, and to destroy things that once were the foundations of this land, and to punish the good and destroy all morality. They want a bacchanal paid by me while I grind away in misery.

Yep, we all hate America. And dissent is treason, and the lowest form of racism. Because if you love your country, you must be automatically and always in favor of everything its government does, until a Republican is President and dissent becomes the highest form of patriotism again.

@phx: Yep, we all hate America. And dissent is treason, and the lowest form of racism. Because if you love your country, you must be automatically and always in favor of everything its government does, until a Republican is President and dissent becomes the highest form of patriotism again.

Don't read into my little witticism (that's quote-unquote) more than is there.

Sounds like it's "leave it" time for you. Then you can go watch your "good" TV without having to download!

Let me guess--some Asian or Middle Eastern country where gays are hung and women always walk three steps behind their men--hey Saudi Arabia! That's the ticket! Though, sadly, immigrants are expected to do crap work there (somehow I don't think you'd like that), and women are learning to drive. Oh well, no place is perfect. Except for the Republic of Kel.

So no, it's not just the government that's the problem. It's the people and the culture. We get the government that's consistent with the culture, after all. And the people want to be lorded over by the elites they elect, and to destroy things that once were the foundations of this land, and to punish the good and destroy all morality. They want a bacchanal paid by me while I grind away in misery.

GM said "LOL. You got issues man. Perry takes as much, or more, federal aid than any other state. He even whined Obama wasn't responding to his requests fast enough for disaster funds. Texas wouldn't last a fucking month without Washington."

Texas may be in the best of all to be self-supporting. Produce their own oil, natural gas, gasoline, electricity, crops, beef and has several seaports.

phx said...@phx: Yep, we all hate America. And dissent is treason, and the lowest form of racism. Because if you love your country, you must be automatically and always in favor of everything its government does, until a Republican is President and dissent becomes the highest form of patriotism again.

Don't read into my little witticism (that's quote-unquote) more than is there.

7/4/12 12:51 PM

Touche. And now for the immediate and important questions of the day?

1-hot dogs, boiled or grilled?2-mustard, yellow or brown?3-buns, toasted or steamed?4-beer, piss water light or a manly brew?5-watermellon, is there anyone who doesn't like watermelon on the 4th?

Tomorrow is another day,and let the arguments commence tomorrow. Today lets enjoy the holiday and thank those that came before us for giving us a country.

I'm not a Moby, if you mean a secret lib trying to make conservatives look bad. I just reject the idea that American culture is fantastic and its people are pure as the driven snow. The fact is, there is a lot of problems in modern American culture and those problems find their way into our government.

I'm not going to play that game anymore. I'm "enjoying the decline" as Roissy says, as the noose slowly tightens across all our necks. And a lot of young men like me are doing the same.

Hot dogs are best if you grill or fry them with butter and something like Lowry's seasoned salt. Brats are even good that way. No need to toast the buns if they're fresh. The family does mustard and chopped onions. I skip the mustard and onions and add pickles or half a slice of American cheese.

I remember Watermelon being far tastier than it seems to be now. Maybe it's because I quit putting salt on it, but most likely it's because I buy the little seedless ones.

What I've got to grill today is skirt steak. I do that medium rare with a marinade of red wine and balsamic vinegar, soy sauce and garlic powder.

Speaking as a Texan, Rick Perry is hardly the best governor we've ever had, and he has a mouth. But he does know how to work up his base, and that's all the hints at secession are. It's not going to happen.

The secession talk might not play well in the northeast, but that's not where his base is. I take it as local color.

Synova said..."With subjects like this, I always remember the KGB analyst who predicted the country would split into as many as 6 different nations."

With subjects like the very quaint KGB analyst, Bin Laden, and Erica Jong, I always consider where they're getting their information about what the red-neck flyover theocracists will do.

==================Synova - 1st, salmon steaks with mayonaisse and fresh garden tarragon and majoram on the grill. Microwaved corn still in the ear.Zinfadel on the rocks.Explosives later on...pretty explosives....

As for the KGB analyst, he had ample evidence before his eyes of a few empires and communist conglomerates supposedly united by a revered stinking common Constitution and "common values" fall apart in front of his eyes in his lifetime:

British African and Caribbean commonwealth broke up.Same with the "shared values and Constitution" French Empire in AfricaSoviet UnionYugoslavia.

When you think about it, there is really nothing any more "precious" to the US Constitution and various US institutions that make it unthinkable breakup or Civil War will not happen any more than with the Soviet Constitution and it's institutions.The Soviets just collapsed when most of the people had come to agree the Soviet Union was in decline, the system had failed...and various regions and ethnicities majority areas would be better shed of others presence or influence and and make it on their own.

I was born, raised and educated in the liberal utopia of Seattle, with enough stints living other places (a Plains state, a deep South state, Asia, and the Middle East) and enough voracious reading to give me perspective on a lot of things. I now live in Texas, and I will never ever ever ever leave. As far as I'm concerned, I'm in heaven, and this is where I will raise my kids and send them off to school (Gig 'em!) and hopefully see them marry Texans and give me a bunch of Texan grandbabies.

I support Rick Perry and his administration, even though he looked like such a jackass during his candidacy. Disappointing. Texas is remarkably well-run. You'd be surprised; I certainly was.

I'd be more than happy to see Texas secede. We can take the rest of flyover country with us while we're at it--the west coast and the east coast need us more than we need them. The hell with them.

With at least half of our country completely oblivious to what our founding freedoms are, and those with some vague notion more than happy to trade them away for assurances of handouts, the USA is sunk anyway, so we might as well leverage what's left into a nation that has some notion of preserving the liberty that our forefathers envisioned.

Not to be too melodramatic, but reading the Declaration of Independence with my kids this morning brought me to tears, because I've lost my faith that our nation as conceived can endure.

Cedarford, what the analyst got wrong isn't that there is a lack of uniting principle but that there is no reason for a state like Texas to leave, or for the mid-west to go its own way or the South or the North East. There is no conflict *between states*.

People don't HAVE to have something binding them together, so long as the people over *there* aren't lording it over the people over *here*.

This is why, now, when talking about the likelihood of breaking up the Union it's about the Federal government, for example, trying to force Arizona to abandon its own security. Arizona doesn't have a *regional* conflict with the next state over. It's got a conflict with the Federal government.

The Soviet Union broke up because it was based on people over *there* lording it over people over *here*. The union was enforced by their armies and Russian values imposed on the various states. Are we supposed to be surprised that Uzbekistan threw that off? Or Poland?

Texas has no interest in making Louisiana behave as Texas thinks Louisiana ought to behave, the way that Washington DC is trying to dominate Arizona. People in Minnesota aren't trying to shut down North Dakota's oil wells the way that Washington DC is trying to stop oil drilling in Alaska.

There is this idea that everyone has to be the same, somehow, that they need to be united in order to have unity. But the truth is that divisions don't matter when people have liberty. They matter when someone tries to force unity.

It's hard not to take it seriously when the wrong word, or the wrong joke, can destroy your career or you can be put in jail for years. These guys seem to think it's serious:

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

Yet feminists aren't treated like the Nazis they are. Oh, and I respect them. They know what they want and won't let anything stop them. You have to admire their blitzkrieg-like determination, in a ghastly sort of way.

Third, the noose is tightening on our necks no matter what. You can't stop that. Nobody can. All the tears you shed won't change that fact by hair's breadth.

If the revolution were held today, and with modern interpretations of the constitution, how would one stop it?

Well, when the southern states seceded, Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas corpus. That was subsequently deemed unconstitutional. Imagine taking hundreds of thousands of prisoners in front of a judge to be individually tried in a court who had been "captured." Imagine mirandizing hundreds of thousands enemy troops. And imagine that it isn't legal to shoot an enemy unless they do something first. A guy standing around with his buddies? Better not shoot him.

Or imagine an invading army. Well, as soon as they put foot on US soil, they get all the rights of the constitution too. Same thing. Let's hope millions of Canadians don't decide to march across the borders and take out Washington DC.

The US constitution today is not your 1787 constitution. In fact, I can't imagine it would have been ratified if the signers thought then it contained the stuff judges have discovered in it today.

The outlook you are advocating, "enjoy the decline!" is more like the attitude of actual Nazis that I'm currently reading about in Antony Beevor's "Fall of Berlin 1945".

"If the war is lost, the people will also be lost and it is not necessary to worry about their needs for elemental survival...For the nation has proved to be weak, and the future belongs entirely to the strong people of the East. Whatever remains after this battle is in any case only the inadequates, because the good ones will be dead." Hitler, p. 156.

By the way, has anyone else read this book?

You despairing conservatives really have to get off your knees, and stop taking yourselves so seriously. If the USA really were facing catastrophe and disaster (which it very well could be, I'm not saying it isn't), I get the feeling a lot of you wouldn't even recognize it, you're so wrapped up in your definitions of "liberty" as tax returns, so wrapped up in the pettiness of creating your so-called enemies.

If we get to the end, face it like men and women. Most of you crying "We're at the end! We're at the end!" sound like incontinent little old ladies and men, unable to reach a sobriety that's equal to your task, to your moment.

Oh, I could care less about your crying in your diapers ("Lots of us feel this way"!), but this...this...citing me for Godwin is just W R O N G.

Kel in his post I was addressing actually brought up the Nazis. "Yet feminists," he said, Kel, that is, "Feminists aren't treated like the Nazis they are." Go on, go back and read it. I'll wait.... . .If it's any comfort, Pogo, I will support your nomination for best supporting actor in a melodramatic role. But try to remember, Pogo, whose heart is broken and who has so much hard work ahead of him saving us all by digging out from the ruins that were left of our republic by LIEberals, it's for BEST acting, not the MOST acting.

I think that the situation in California can be illustrative of the nation and why some state want to depart.

Outside of the 'blue' coastal areas where the majority of the people are, the rest of the State and the population might as well not exist. We ARE lorded over by other people.

They don't live in our area, don't understand how we want to live, what it takes to survive in a non urban environment, how agriculture and nature are a part of our lives. They don't care...YET every decision about us is made by the 'lords'.

Flyover states feel the same. Washington DC and the more populous blue states, California, New York etc. are making the rules and really just don't give a shit about US.

We have nothing in common with them culturally and in fact are at economic war with those areas. They plunder our resources and give nothing back. If we were independent we could at least negotiate some treaties not only with the other former States, but also with countries like Canada and Mexico for example.

A break up of the US is inevitable and I think the sooner the better. Each area will be the better for it.

Great thing about our country, men like Washington and Jefferson and Adams saw what was wrong and fought to put it right. Americans aren't perfect, and our history is filled with almost collapses, but the people, the people not the politicians, tend to put it right.

If you're celebrating or wallowing in its decline, you just don't get why we would celebrate this day. You've given up and given into despair--and that, if anything, is the source of what is actually wrong with this country--people acting out of despair instead of hope.

Give me the people who still hope, and I'll celebrate with them the possibilities that are still ahead for us in this country.

Godwin's law is not invoked twice in a thread, Pogo, you know that. Jeez, sometimes I don't know what to make of you.

Yes, I find it a fucking hoot, a real feast. On one level I want to give you and your "Lots-of-us-who-feel-this-way!" friends lots of attention to bray away. If Obama's people know what they're doing, they're going to tie you and your secessionist and extremist friends to the GOP and by extension to Mitt Romney. You guys are giving Republicans fits, not Obama voters like me.

It's also a hoot because you guys on the extreme end have no sense of humor, and it's easier to tease self-important prophets of doom.

You've given up and given into despair--and that, if anything, is the source of what is actually wrong with this country--people acting out of despair instead of hope.

I wish I could be convinced that things would change, but everything is being lost and there is no future. The only way to end a decadent, diseased culture is to let it collapse of its own weight.

"If Obama's people know what they're doing, they're going to tie you and your secessionist and extremist friends to the GOP and by extension to Mitt Romney. You guys are giving Republicans fits, not Obama voters like me."

You don't get it. It doesn't matter if Romney wins or not. He's part of the same statism and comes from the same diseased culture as Obama. Yeah, Obama is an 11 on the scale of radicalism. Romney is a 6, maybe. Big frigging deal. There's no stopping the train here.

Ever notice how a lib never says "enough is enough" when it comes to government, or taxes? Ever notice how spending can never be too high? Ever notice how, so long as someone else, usually a man, is paying for their mistakes, it's fine? Ever notice how they need to poke their meddlesome little demands into everyone's life? Can't smoke, can't drink 32oz soda, can't pay a doctor cash. Do this, don't do that. OBEY.

You want Godwin? Every liberal on the planet, every Democrat, is a Tin Hitler who can't get enough Power by lording over us all. They will never stop. And so the boot grinds on our faces ever heavier.

Congratulations. You won. Grind that boot even harder. I'm not going to stop you.

My ancestors settled in South Carolina in 1788, from Ireland. I was born in Alabama because one of them fought under Andrew Jackson and received a land grant there as veteran's benefit. After the late unpleasantness, some of my distant cousins moved to Texas. I met some of them in San Antonio one time. I more recently learned that at least one has retired from the military in California. I have been to all those places. Texas is my favorite. It is the most American of the US States. It has all the good qualities of America and few of the bad ones.

BTW, I read one time that a Confederate officer said after war, that the reason the north won was, 'Because they had more Irish.'

I don't know how someone could succumb to despair due to outside, rational, forces. From a lack of understanding of History and general depression, sure. But a rational understanding of the world as it is? Not so much.

I'm not talking about continuing as a nation, ever more centralized with a bigger government, or California as a single state. I don't see how California can save itself from a painful economic reckoning. Change is part of life. Being in transition means we're alive and not dead.

But it's a choice to look at what is going on now and seeing only decay compared to what must be an idealized and unrealistic view of what came before. The "good old days" are and always have been a lie.

It's like the idiots who say negative things starting with "Only in America... blah blah blah," when they've never been anywhere or anywhen else and haven't a clue.

Everything has to be an existential disaster, and why? Because we're comfortable and bored. Praise God. We're in a depression and our president is making it last longer, but we're still so privileged that we can be comfortable and bored and prone to drama, angst, and moping.

The world was not more peaceful when the News was half an hour every night or when King George had to find out later what happened on July 4th. The courts were not more trustworthy. The innocent were not better protected from false accusation. Our freedoms were not better protected. Our elected officials were not more virtuous.

That more injustice or corruption is exposed to the light doesn't mean that there is more of it now than before. That there are battles to fight doesn't mean that this is either new or hopeless.

"Well, Texas certainly has more than its fair share of dumbshits. Texas has a high ranking for obesity and a low ranking for education, so yeah, Texas is definitely one of the most American of states."

Gotta love liberal hate for overweight people and the poor. Particularly when it's right out in the open.

How can anyone not be optimistic about living in a world where people forget to hide their unsavory assumptions? How can this be anything but good?

This is just goofy. Really, truly goofy. I realize that the average American has essentially no understanding of economics, but "conservatives" seem to favor willful ignorance with respect to the economy.

I suggest "conservatives" think about the world's economy. Realistically, "conservatives" can't blame Obama for everything that's gone wrong everywhere since the beginning of time. They'll try, of course, but it will demonstrate once again that they need to sample reality every now and then.

First, I don't represent all liberals, in the same way you don't represent all "conservative" dumbshits. So if you're going to pull the hate label out of your ass because you don't have anything intelligent to say, at least have the decency to pin it on me instead of lazily labeling ideological opponents.

Second, my observation about obesity rates in America and Texas doesn't mean I hate the obese. If I note that NBA players are tall, that doesn't mean I hate tall people.

Third, I didn't say ANYTHING about poor people, but on the basis of public policies advocated by American "conservatives," I care a helluva lot more about the poor than American "conservatives."

Synova: I don't know how someone could succumb to despair due to outside, rational, forces. From a lack of understanding of History and general depression, sure. But a rational understanding of the world as it is? Not so much.

You don't understand the long defeat. If anything, because of knowledge of history and a rational understanding of things, it's the correct response.

I've never claimed to be an expert on the economy, Jake. But it seems to me that Hayek or the Austrian school or even Friedman's hard-line objectivism at least have a rational basis related to human behavior.

None of these philosophies would consider, for a moment, that destroying perfectly operational vehicles, removing that value from the economy, would magically add value to the economy. They wouldn't, any of them, be able to claim with a straight face that unemployment payments were an economic multiplier, a monetary version of perpetual motion where running energy through the system ended up with more at the end instead of less. None of them would suggest that growing government obligations was a necessary part of economic health. Not a single one of those very respected economic philosophies would have resulted in anything remotely like *surprise* that putting us is greater debt resulted in no economic growth whatsoever, and did not even give a secondary benefit of improved infrastructure that might be useful later.

Ok, I agree with you that Obama isn't responsible for the "depression." I agree that certain policies would be better at addressing our economic problems and other policies would be worse. But what we agree on clearly undermines your claim, doesn't it?

Perry was just throwing red meat out there to his troops. But I have to say its unneeded stoking as obama has no trouble doing that when he inforces only the laws he chooses and has a tin ear when the people tell him to drop obamacare.I am not down in the dumps. We live in a great country that can survive a crypto-socialist from Hawaii. Happy 4th! :-)

The "stimulus" went primarily to keeping the public sector comfortable, and so kept state and local governments from doing the belt-tightening necessary. It's still going to have to happen, it's simply been delayed.

He's still talking about the public sector as if public employees generate wealth in the overall economy instead of consume limited tax revenue.

Oh say, did you hear that our "Green" Navy bought a crap-load of bio fuel for the fleet with your tax dollars for upwards from $27 a GALLON?

All the carbon when it burns plus whatever it took extra to produce, but whatev... green energy is going to save our economy.

(The study correlates school segregation to to performance, but I don't think that's the only possible cause. Performance in places other than northern urban areas seems to even out in areas where the minorities aren't actually minorities, though over-all scores are low, the scores for minorities are higher in comparison. In other words... it's complicated.)

"Oh say, did you hear that our "Green" Navy bought a crap-load of bio fuel for the fleet with your tax dollars for upwards from $27 a GALLON? All the carbon when it burns plus whatever it took extra to produce, but whatev... green energy is going to save our economy. This isn't Obama's doing?"

Actually, the Defense Department came on board themselves. SLATE had a good article on this. (So did Forbes.)

The rationale for barring the Navy from buying the 450,000 gallons of biofuels necessary for the experiment is economic: These fuels are too expensive—about four times more costly than conventional fuels. To hammer home the point, the committee’s Republican leaders passed an amendment barring the entire Defense Department from using any alternative fuels, for any purpose, if they’re more expensive than oil. But then, in a shameless disclosure of who’s paying the tiller, they tacked on a provision exempting coal and natural gas from this prohibition. As Noah Shachtman put it in Wired’s Danger Room blog, they “didn’t put limits on all alternative fuels—just the ones with environmental benefits.”

FORBES: The Navy committed to initial biofuel testing programs through its “Green Fleet” program, a two-day demonstration scheduled for the biennial Rim of Pacific exercise in Hawaii this summer. Of the $12 million spent by the Defense Department on the Navy’s upcoming Green Fleets program, all will go directly back into the U.S. economy.

Building a robust biofuels industry that produces a consistent supply of home grown fuel for our soldiers strengthens our national security and is the smart, economic choice for our economy. The Defense Department will have a reliable supply of stably priced fuel, and a growing biofuels industry will reinvigorate jobs in rural economies.

Money for bio-fuels goes back into the economy the same way that the crap-load of money given to Solyndra went back into the economy.

The exact same amount of money in the Navy budget would have also gone back into the economy. No *additional* tax money was routed into the economy. It was merely shifted from other purposes.

The question to ask is... what legitimate purposes of the Navy were robbed for this political stunt?

As for bio-fuel... first you have to expend energy and add carbon to the atmosphere to frack the shale and get the diesel, then you have run the tractors and add carbon to the atmosphere to grow the corn, then you have to use energy and add carbon to the atmosphere to process the corn, then you burn the bio-fuel.

"The exact same amount of money in the Navy budget would have also gone back into the economy."

More than one economy, not ours, when you consider that we don't own all our own oil.

IMO you are shortsighted. The military is putting great effort into domestic sources of energy. This is only secondarily a measure for the domestic economy. The primary effort is ensuring our own security.

Consider: when the cost of oil goes up a dollar a barrel, the U.S. military fuel expenditure increases by $31 million.

Consider: the military in Afghanistan is clamoring for portable, flexible folding solar panels. These power command posts, intelligence equipment and air conditioning, and deployed units' communications, among other things. They significantly reduce fuel to run generators, eliminate the need for bulky and heavy batteries. That means less fuel and equipment to transport, and fewer fuel deliveries over dangerous and costly routes. Savings, in other words, that include fighters' lives.

Consider: Seven domestic military bases were recently approved for solar installations. The energy generated is expected to power the bases and allow them to sell excess back to the grid.

Consider: Solar can't power the Navy, so they had intended to try the two-day biofuel exercise. The goal was to be able to use domestically-generated renewable energy.

We won't be able to live on foreign oil securely forever. Even if we invaded oil-rich countries, transport remains insecure. Potentially that's a lot of wars your talking about. Surprise--the goal of the military actually isn't to go to war.

@leslynn:Consider: the military in Afghanistan is clamoring for portable, flexible folding solar panels. These power command posts, intelligence equipment and air conditioning, and deployed units' communications, among other things. They significantly reduce fuel to run generators, eliminate the need for bulky and heavy batteries. That means less fuel and equipment to transport, and fewer fuel deliveries over dangerous and costly routes. Savings, in other words, that include fighters' lives.

One $10,000 solar panel produces 1 kW-hr in a day of sunlight. One gallon of gasoline contains the equivalent of 36.6 kW-hr. The solar power fairy is not saving lives in Afghanistan.

"The Marines and sailors of 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment arrived last October at Forward Operating Baseackson, outside Sangin, Afghanistan, with an array of solar equipment. The battalion’s generators typically use more than 20 gallons of fuel a day, but the Marines have cut that to 2.5 gallons a day, according to Staff Sgt. David Doty, who maintains the gear.

"Saving generator fuel can cut down on the number of convoys the Marines must make to fueling stations, and therefore lessen the chances of becoming a target. The 3/5, based at Camp Pendleton, Calif., lost more than a dozen Marines right after deployment last fall, including nine men killed by IEDs over a four-day period in October."

U.S. Army Deploys Solar Power Backpacks in Afghanistan ... Sep 14, 2010 ...http://cleantechnica.com/2010/09/14/u-s-army-deploys-solar-power-backpacks-in-afghanistan/

"The legendary competition between the branches of the U.S. armed forces has taken on a sustainable twist. Take portable solar power, for example. The Marines just introduced a portable solar power system this spring, and a few weeks later the Air Force kicked in with a portable solar system of its own. Now the U.S. Army has entered the fray with a portable battery recharging kit called the Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System (REPPS), which features a 62-watt solar panel “blanket” tucked into a backpack. The system was just deployed in Afghanistan this summer."

"Later this year, two Army brigades will deploy to Afghanistan wth portable solar panels, capable of powering the units’ electrical equipment, the Army announced recently. Under the plan, small dismounted infantry units will carry the solar panels that will allow them to stay in the field for six days, instead of two, before they need to be resupplied, according to Richard Kidd, deputy assistant secretary of the Army (Energy & Sustainability).

“The Army doesn’t have any green initiatives in terms of being green for green’s sake,” Kidd said. “The Army has a range of energy and security and sustainability initiatives that are associated with mission success on our installations or in operations overseas.”

A compromise short of states seceding is restoring federalism. Rather than having the feds push us around, the states should claw back the powers that the feds have unconstitutionally grabbed from the states.

Federalism has several advantages: more constitutional, much more likely to produce governments that are more responsive to the wants and needs of the governed, way less likely to produce a fed gov that is a dictatorship, and encourages experimentation and innovation in the governing process.

Why would anyone want an ultra powerful fed gov that pushes the individual states around? Why not let each state organize things as it sees fit? The balance of power between the feds and the states not only preserves our liberty but it makes our votes (on average) 50 times more meaningful.

More than one economy, not ours, when you consider that we don't own all our own oil.

Which wouldn't be a problem if it were't for congress and the White House.

Other than that the ideas are sound. The military through DARPA should have been doing this 30 years ago.There is no reason why even our smallest ships can't be run on nuclear power.Nice to someone who leans left supporting a strong military.

Kel makes a very good point about the culture. Kids today are being brainwashed by colleges AND they are not being taught how to think critically so they embrace the librul conventional wisdom.

Here is one snipppet of a conversation I had yesterday with a young credentialed lady about govt unions:She did not know who George Meany was.She said the minimum wage was only $5.25.She said if union transit are paid an average of $90,000 [salary & benefits], them maybe the problem is everyone should be paid more.

@leslynn: If the "The Army doesn’t have any green initiatives in terms of being green for green’s sake", then the deputy assistant secretary of the Army (Energy & Sustainability) you are quoting would not exist.

The Army has an infinite pot of money and does whatever its told by the civilian government. Solar power solutions for civilian life, for the entire country, are not coming out of there, any more than the Navy's nuclear reactors are available to power your home.

Because you are scientifically illiterate, nothing you posted gives enough detail to evaluate whether the solar power applications you describe are actually better than the alternatives. You quote military flacks but give no hard numbers about energy and power the demands or the solar technology being used. Just vague and positive press releases from officials serving a government that throws billions down the solar energy rathole.

Incidentally in all your economically illiterate blather about energy autarky, nuclear power, which currently supplies about 20% of America's energy needs, does not appear.

When you said, ""The Army doesn’t have any green initiatives in terms of being green for green’s sake", then the deputy assistant secretary of the Army (Energy & Sustainability) you are quoting would not exist" I stopped reading.

When you can quote "no green for green's sake" and then ignore your own bold print of "Energy and Sustainability, I know no nothing sensible is coming next.

When you said, ""The Army doesn’t have any green initiatives in terms of being green for green’s sake", then the deputy assistant secretary of the Army (Energy & Sustainability) you are quoting would not exist" I stopped reading.

When you can quote "no green for green's sake" and then ignore your own bold print of "Energy and Sustainability, I know no nothing sensible is coming next.

Jake Diamond must have scored pretty damned low in math himself, since he obviously doesn't know that disaggregating by race and income destroys his argument about Texas' relative performance in education.

Texas educates a far wider diversity of folks far better than Wisconsin does. He would realize this, if he understodo statistics.

But he's just an ignorant parrot, and parrots are incapable of independent thought or analysis, as well as notoriously sucky at higher math.

"We won't be able to live on foreign oil securely forever. Even if we invaded oil-rich countries, transport remains insecure. Potentially that's a lot of wars your talking about. Surprise--the goal of the military actually isn't to go to war."

Creating an artificial scarcity is not winning an argument.

But sure, if we're going to ban drilling in ANWAR; ban fracking (or try) in the US; block the Keystone pipeline; and ban off-shore drilling in the Gulf...